Christianity, not political correctness, is the best safeguard

It should be human sinfulness that is under scrutiny over sexual abuse in the Church of England rather than insinuations of blame being poured on orthodox Christianity. The truth is that if the received biblical teaching of the Church had not been disobeyed by some clergy, then the appalling sexual abuse that has come to light would never have occurred.

Reporting on the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), which is currently examining the traditionalist diocese of Chichester as a case study, Christian Today declared‘The Church of England’s historic opposition to homosexuality and women bishops may have fuelled sex abuse, an inquiry heard’.

‘Both Anglo Catholicism and evangelicals may have considered themselves to have been under threat in the church at the time in question. In those circumstances, some witnesses tell us that feelings of defensiveness may have come to the fore.’

She added: ‘Some people who have given evidence to this inquiry indicate that, in those circumstances, people may have put loyalty to their faction above dealing with safeguarding and that in some cases ignorance or naivety about homosexual practices may have wrongly equated homosexuality with child abuse and so nothing happened.’

It is on these remarks that Christian Today appears to have hung its headline to the story: ‘Did the Church of England’s divisions over homosexuality contribute to child sex abuse cover-up?’

Whatever part factional divisions may have played in the alleged cover-ups, surely the ultimate solution to sexual abuse in the Church of England is an agreed agenda to follow its canonical teaching that the only right context for sexual expression is heterosexual marriage?

The Church of England’s current stance on this ethic is quite clear and is expressed in Canon B30, Of Holy Matrimony:

‘The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.’

This Christian sexual ethic is in marked contrast to politically correct dogma, which permits sex outside heterosexual marriage and attacks the Christian ethic as anti-progressive.

Would it not be wonderful to hear a senior figure in the Church of England telling the inquiry that following the Lord Jesus Christ’s teaching rather than political correctness is the best form of safeguarding?